I would imagine Willy Week has been prowling the strip club from the DUI and others. If you read the link in my post to the earlier story, you will note that his behavior was known around the O. The writer of the article I posted was warned about him by others at O.
Between strippers, past & current O employees, and the 23 yr old junior college student, the stories are bound to show up. Tick - Tick - Tick.

The autopsy (brain tissue health analysis) and toxicology reports (e.g., sildenafil; tadalafil; vardenafil) may be very enlightening. Many prayers for the innocents and those affected by that sad turn of events.

I think this is heavy-handed. Where's the compassion? Then again, I saw people fired at the Tribune for much less. Reckless people like this just go through life mangling one life after another. It's revolting.
The Oregonian should be ashamed of itself. If the editors think they can reestablish some sort of moral righteousness by firing this woman, they're kidding themselves. Maybe they can answer a famous journalistic question paraphrased just for them: What did they know and when did they know it?

Not only was editor Kathy Glanville the anonymous "family friend," but Caldwell's wife Lora Kuykendall untilrecently was a top editor at The Oregonian for many years herself. Seems relevant to his obituary if not the larger news story, but The O has never mentioned it.

Okay, When do we learn the identity of the 23 year old? Really? Does it MATTER at this point? Other than having a PUBLIC person to chase down and hound? It's a tragedy on so many fronts. Let the family grieve. And if it's true the affair went on for a bit, there's probably some emotions there being dealt with as well. Regardless of who feels they are right or wrong. The folks involved know and feel whatever emotions they are going through. WE are not their emotional or moral judge. If you know anyone involved, let them deal with it, and if you don't, well, your opinions are your own, and rightfully so, but don't project them onto the folks involved. They will work through them as they NEED too. Frankly, I'm surprised the family announced what they have, but maybe they are just trying a preventative measure. Though these days it's probably futile given the "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Regardless of verification.

The identity of the 23 year old is none of your business. She is an adult and entitled to have a private sex life, whether with one person or 50 people. (OMG! She'll need THOUSANDS of birth control pills!)

What I find sickening about this story is not his "behavior" or her "behavior." It's the Puritan element and attitude we still have in this country that has to always be up in everybody else's personal business and especially their sex lives.

It's clear that the two of these consenting adults had an "arrangement." She is not married (to my knowledge) and their arrangement should not be a crime. Certainly the public should not have been privy to their private business.

No one knows, except maybe close personal friends or family, the intimate details of any marital relationship. I do know that many middle-aged women (because I am one) just aren't that interested in sex anymore, and many married middle-aged men and women don't have the same sexual attraction or interest they once had for each other. Usually, marital relationships change to accommodate that reality.

It doesn't sound as though he was out trolling for a new, young "trophy wife," intending to dump his wife for a younger woman the way many older men who, no doubt, are now mocking him have done. He was just having his sexual needs met in a private way, not in some back alley. Why is this treated as a huge scandal, complete with sanctimonious scorn and ridicule?

I have no problem with The Oregonian, even if they had been aware of the actual events, making a decision to keep these details private out of respect for the family. No law was broken. No charges of prostitution were brought against the young woman, nor should they have been (especially since he wasn't around to have the same charges filed against him).

The details probably would have leaked out eventually from the actual police reports, but The O was under no journalistic obligation to make the private details of this man's death public. In the same way they censored the Gary Trudeau comic strip, they're simply kowtowing to the extreme right in an attempt to appear "balanced" no matter how idiotic or unnecessary.

Frankly, if this country would grow up, and the bible-thumping, evangelical, fundamentalist, dominionist sex police would get the f**k out of everybody's personal lives, our country might cease to be the laughing stock of all educated, civilized nations.

The only time I cheer "sexual behavior" outings is when they occur to elected officials and their powerful $$ backers who try to legislate the sexual behavior of others, and, my personal favorite, deny the civil rights of gays only to find out they're enjoying the services of "rent boys" or trolling and putting nude photos of themselves on gay sex sites. Those hypocrites deserve all the scorn, derision, and media attention that comes their way.

Mr. Caldwell, as far as I know, was not one of these people and his memory does not deserve such ridicule or scorn. Certainly, his family does not.

I left the following comment on facebook, but now that I have read the piggy comments demanding the name and address of the girl in the story, apparently so the writers can fill the opening in her schedule, I realize it is hopeless to expect such people to show an ounce of compassion.
realitybasedliberal, above, is pretty much right on. Bill McDonald's comment does not compute. I can't figure out why b. mused is surprised that two women who worked at the same newspaper for years are friends. How is that figurative incest and not propinquity?
If you read some of the snickering blog comments about Bob's death, you can understand why someone who cared would risk their job to protect his wife and children. If you knew Kathleen Glanville you would understand that her motives were honorable and decent, although her decision was wrong. It has been a few years since I have worked at The O, but I doubt Kathleen has an enemy anywhere in the newsroom.

I think the punishment is excessive for a late career person in a tight job market, and I am disappointed in The Oregonian's management for coming down so hard on a nice person, who was really punished for Bob's mistakes and to protect the paper's reputation in a political environment so hostile people would turn forgiveness into some sort of arrogant elitism. I hope the decision can be reversed by managers willing to take the heat from critics and say rules are important, but not the only important thing.

At least all the know-it-alls who yesterday were sure The Oregonian's management was covering up for one of their own can now be assured that they were completely wrong. No conspiracy, just a good person trying to do the right thing.

Prostitution is a crime: exchanging money or gifts for sex is prostitution.

If Mr. Caldwell hadn't died in flagrante delicto, etiquette would have required him to reach in his wallet and remove the funds he had set aside for this "date".

The responding officers showed their compassion by simply accepting her assertion that she hadn't been paid that day. They certainly had probably cause to arrest her if she admitted he died before having the opportunity to pay for the service.

Progressives want to pretend that prostitution is a career option and the 'puritans' should just but out. This woman was being exploited by a man 40 years her senior: if she were your daughter you wouldn't dismiss that fact so easily.

We live in a modern country, we have student loans, pell grants, and scholarships to pay for books and living expenses...Failing that, there are on campus work/study programs or waiting tables. No woman should have to screw a man old enough to be her grandfather just to get by.

Glanville's situation is not clear, but seems to me she is being made a scapegoat:

She lied in the capacity of being a personal friend, not an editor. Still wrong.

She was cited, as unverified, but the O did not exercise due diligence. Wrong.

If she deserved to be fired then the reporter who ran with the story knowing her "bias" should also be fired. The editor who to decided to run with the story, if knowing her identity, should also be fired.

Should the O commit seppuku for this transgression? I have to say no.

I believe the firing is either an emotional knee-jerk overreaction or a shock-and-awe cover-up for deeper transgressions.

Following this in the journalism sites -- www.cjr.org and www.editorandpublisher.com come to mind -- will be more useful than our speculation and bloviating.

And again, I express my great sympathy for all the pain and suffering to those involved who are blameless in this fiasco.

In the flurry of comments on the Oregonian on line after the "correction" was printed, the O editor handling the ever unraveling coverup, prior to her closing comments and then yanking the whole story and comments, was asked by one On line poster if the "family friend" was an Oregonian employee.

The editor handling the ongoing coverup and spin refused to answer that question.

Interesting.

The O continuously changes "facts' on its "news" pages to fit the editors' convenience, prejudices and personal interests.

the two separate Caldwell coverups - the DUII and the death, are only the most embarrassing(to the O)examples.

Look at the sports pages. The O has decided that the "...Washington, D.C. NFL football team..." doesn't have a name. The O refuses to print the team name because that name is contrary to an O editorial policy. The name is a fact. The O may disapprove of the name, and express that disapproval. But to totally censor the name, because the editors don't approve?

Similar shenaniogans appear to be going on with respect to the Clackamas county folks who are seeking votes on URDs or rail projects. Amazing mis statements of basic facts in "news" stories, each of which mis statements serve to advance the personal opinions and policies of the Os writers and editors.

Read a crime report in the O lately. Look at any description of a suspect or person of interest which the Oregonian prints.

The concept that the O is a trustworthy "news" source is risable.

And no, I'm not a tea party person. Left of center registered Democrat who is getting tired of the single acceptable viewpoint bullsh*r* in Portland which the Zero does so much to perpetuate.*

She violated the number one rule for a journalist. Tell the truth when reporting. Firing her is a no-brainer, and was the right thing to do.

What she and his family would have realized, as evidenced from most of the posts here, are that few care or would judge him for his "arrangement".

When a newspaper makes up false stories as "cover" they lose all credibiility. Hard to believe she is the only one to go out of all this. If it was too difficult to write, they should have let another news agency write it.

I cannot say I am touched by the Oregonian's concern for privacy when it is one of their own whose privacy is threatened [or one of their favorites, see Goldschmidt]. I do not see that concern for others.

Regarding the Puritanical. Having consumed their editorial page for years, I have no problem holding the Oregonian to the same "standard" it applies to others.

I think the Oregonian has screwed Glanville. The disciplinary action should have been against the reporter who didn't think to contact the police or further investigate the story, not against the source.

Peter Farrell,
You say my comment doesn't compute then you basically repeat exactly what I said. Firing the woman was heavy-handed. Where's the compassion?

Try reading it again.

P.S. The comment by "Bill" is not me. I always sign mine "Bill McDonald."

Oh, and it's interesting that Peter Bhatia's statement did clarify what the paper knew and when they knew it, by admitting that they knew the source was one of their own in the original story, and that in retrospect they should have included that.

The prudent and correct action would have been for Glanville to have had "No Comment" from the beginning that Saturday night. As a family friend the paper certainly would have found this appropriate. The punishment is harsh but not unwarranted. It has nothing to do with a "Puritan" knee jerk reaction. It has to do with having enough honesty and integrity to let the facts become known without participating in a false and misleading fashion. Even or especially being in a state of grief one can be forgiven for having No Comment but to fabricate such a lie in a profession that supposedly values truth is beyond careless.

"Progressives want to pretend that prostitution is a career option and the 'puritans' should just but out. This woman was being exploited by a man 40 years her senior: if she were your daughter you wouldn't dismiss that fact so easily."

Mister Tee, you seem to uphold the view that prostitution should be a crime but yet you blame only the man for it. I assure you, if this woman were my daughter I would hold her equally responsible. One could (or *I* could) just as or more easily see that she was exploiting his base and poorly controlled or managed needs. They certainly appear to have been using each other. And it's a dubious supposition that she "had to" "screw a man old enough to be her grandfather just to get by." I would not have accepted that excuse from my daughter, ever.

I was responding to "RealityBasedLIberal" (the Oxymoron to which I referred), who wrote, "Frankly, if this country would grow up, and the bible-thumping, evangelical, fundamentalist, dominionist sex police would get the f**k out of everybody's personal lives, our country might cease to be the laughing stock of all educated, civilized nations."

Prostitution rarely exists as a solely "personal matter". It invariably impacts the larger community in negative ways. College students should have more desirable employment alternatives than hooking. If they don't, then our society has failed to facilitate their access to higher education. And I'm not a religious zealot or prude.

The fact the woman is 23 years old doesn't make it any less tragic than if she were 17: the law may view the adult prostitute as the criminal, but I view her as the victim irrespective of age.

I generally try to not post about issues that the Caldwell story raises. One that slightly surfaces is the potential of bribery, held hostage, influencing opinion; all potentially influencing city and regional politics that Bob Caldwell position controlled.

With apologies to the grieving Caldwell family, I relate that potential to the connections of Mr. Caldwell, his wife Lora Cuykendall (past Oregonian editor)to Goldschmidt, through OHSU Board positions and consultants and several other connections. Why didn't the Oregonian pursue the issues of Goldschmidt through the decades?

Same goes with Wu. Caldwell had drinking convictions that may have tainted Oregonian's pursuit of the Wu story, at minimum. These are the kinds of concerns that Jack has even cited.

Jack: I can accept one of the first two comments might have been ironic. The second is clearly the work of someone who has not fully explored adult classified's on the internet.
Bill McD: I have tried, but I still can't see how what you wrote made the point you say it made. I know you sign what you say here, which I usually do not but did in this case. Anyhow, it is good to know others see the human dimension beyond the rules.

Mister Tee: In most cases, prostitution is not a crime, but a misdemeanor and in much of the world it is neither. I did not spend 30 years in the newspaper business without knowing there are economic and social injustices involved, and also knowing most johns get a ticket which, if they don't fight, they can probably beat by just showing up when the police officer does not or hide by simply paying up. Nothing in the accounts of Bob's death adds to our knowledge of the problem or the solution.
A Baker and Gibby: Please keep studying the reports and comments. You do not understand the facts.
For those of you who think it would be favoritism to not report the prostitution aspect of Bob's death: If the Oregonian reported every prostitution (and DUI case) in any detail, there would be no room left for the Blazers, or much else.
We are told the decision to fire Kathleen was harsh but justified. Some said it was a "no brainer." That is my worry. Inflexible rules, we can't play favorites, the reputation of the paper is at stake -- none of that had to decide the case. An emotionally involved friend of the family made an uncharacteristic off-duty mistake. The paper would have been criticized for any lesser punishment, but most of that criticism would have come anyway no matter what.
If The Oregonian had simply laid out the facts, admitted the error and said it was not firing the person involved because we like her and respect what she has done over the years, at least as many people who are not angry over imagined wrongs would have responded with understanding if not praise.

I don't see this as a debate about sex - I see this as another example of how institutions act. To pretend this man wasn't a political force in Oregon is ridiculous, so it's not just our right to examine how that power was used, but we had better do it.
Frankly, the details of his death aren't disturbing at all compared to the idea of him drunk behind the wheel hitting another vehicle, as he did a couple of years back.
One thing that's obvious if you follow the news at all, is that even our most respected institutions are capable of wild mistakes in judgement and we better be on them or else.

I don't understand the reason behind the original lie. None of this even had to become public. A simple statement to the press that Mr. Caldwell passed away while visiting a friend would have been plenty. There doesn't appear to be a crime involved so there wouldn't have been a police report. No lie, then no retraction and no news.

Seems to me the wife's friend blew the whole thing up by making up a story that was quickly debunked and then everyone was off to the races.

Hasn't everyone in the news business learned this lesson by now? It isn't the act, it is the lying and the coverup that generate the heat. The fact that a senior editor made such a boneheaded move is probably why she was fired.

"Frankly, if this country would grow up, and the bible-thumping, evangelical, fundamentalist, dominionist sex police would get the f**k out of everybody's personal lives, our country might cease to be the laughing stock of all educated, civilized nations."

Not to mention if the agnostic, secular, atheistic, elitist, liberal thought police would get the f**k out of everybody's personal lives telling us to use low flush toilets and fluorescent bulbs, take shorter showers, eat organic, celebrate homosexuality, separate garbage, compost more, drive less, bike more...

"What is the evidence that alleged gifts and alleged sex constituted a quid pro quo?"

From the Oregonian report Monday, March 12:

"The woman told deputies she met Caldwell about a year ago at Portland Community College. Caldwell, she said, knew she didn't have much money, so he provided her cash for books and other things for school in exchange for sex acts at her apartment.

"Caldwell had not given her money Saturday, she told deputies. They decided against pursuing prostitution charges."

The fact that the young lady admitted all of this tells me that she isn't really a prostitute. A real working girl wouldn't tell the police that she was accepting money for sex. This is just a young lady who got a little in over her head and then became terrified (understandable) when the guy dies on her floor.
A hard core hooker would've told the police that she came home from church and found a dead guy in her apartment. A really hard core hooker would've had her pimp dispose of the body. This is just a college gal who was taking a little extra advantage of what God gave her.

Peter, I understood she started or perpetuated a lie that ended up being printed as a story by the organization where she is employed. No different perception by the public than if she had penned it herself. Unless that is wrong I stand by what I said.

As for the identity of the young woman, there will always be a group of individuals wanting to get her name and a glimpse into her life. This is the macabre nosy side of people that few care for, but exists all the same. Sick as it is, some will want to see her just so they can imagine all the titillating details which are void from their own lives. A rather disgusting part of human nature maybe, but less disturbing than censorship or omissions from a reporter or editor who has a personal stake in a story.

Why is it less unpalatable Caldwell provided her cash for "books" and school supplies than providing her cash for drugs? She was poor, he took advantage of her. So what she says she spent the money on makes it an "arrangement" and not exploitation?

Bill McDonald: True miscommunication. I was responding to:
Maybe this is a message to the Oregonian employees from management: "We fired her so you better shut up or we'll fire you too."
Posted by Bill McDonald | March 16, 2012 12:05 AM

Gibby: You make no allowance for emotional upset, then? I do. She was speaking after a recent death from the home of the widow, I understand. I don’t believe she planned to lie or she would have taken into account the likelihood that the deputies would file a report which would then become public. Her lie was not for gain, or to advance a cause or anything else. It was an act of kindness. Just misguided.
To several: It simply does not matter if the woman was seeking money for books, drugs or to feed a starving baby. This is not the issue here.
I am beginning to think that in a few cases my attempt to soften views is just adding to the lack of civility. Conspiracy theorists should know that in my experience that if Kathleen Glanville were put in charge of the Oregonian’s news coverage, she would insist it be open, honest and fair. People who are not nasty and wish to say more to me should please message me at warmanddry@gmail.com. I will respond as best I can.

"Why is it less unpalatable Caldwell provided her cash for "books" and school supplies than providing her cash for drugs? She was poor, he took advantage of her. So what she says she spent the money on makes it an "arrangement" and not exploitation?"

Who is exploiting whom? Why is it less unpalatable (or less politically correct?) to say, "He was horny; she took advantage of him?" What I find unpalatable is selling sex for money (even if I personally would not argue it should be, as it is, illegal). No matter the price it has to cheapen the body and coarsen the soul. I seriously doubt there are many women in this country -- and no college students -- who have to do that. I object to what seems to be the automatic presumptive double standard of woman as victim. As I said earlier, I find that patronizing.

You don't say an editor of the O was a degenerate, and this is also my lack of surprise the liberal statists are defending the sexual abuse of disenfranchised women; it will only get better if she's revealed as a minority.

Peter,
I threw that part in as a theory. Not even as speculation that it really happened. I was just trying to figure out why they would do this to this woman. It doesn't completely add up to me.

Let me rephrase it: I doubt very much if the Oregonian wants further examination of this on an institutional level. The mosaic we have been given is one of a stable, bastion of journalistic integrity, that, one day, found out one of their own had his own notion of what the phrase "a pillar in the community" was supposed to mean. Then, a while later another one of their own turned out to have passed them a bogus story.

That's it though. It stops there. And one way to make any further discussion from within the paper stop, is to drop the axe on someone. It does the Oregonian no good to have their employees speculating on who really knew what about Bob and how his behavior could have compromised his ability to do his job. So we are told that a building full of investigative reporters had no idea what was going on with a close colleague of theirs they had worked with for decades. Got it.

I bet former employees are definitely running through events again though. That is for sure, and I bet a former governor is too.

I wish that people with important social roles like editing newspapers, amputating body parts, etc, could be selected in part on the basis of plain decency and self-control. When a man has reached the autumn of his life and can still get a DUI, exhibiting flagrantly reckless behavior, it's time to find a talented replacement for him.

And that is what is really wrong with Oregon, and liberals in general.
No lines are ever drawn in the sand. The congressman has to be literally certifiable before the press starts to talk. The mayor can ram through a parking lot, break a curb and smash two cars, and never get a ticket, because, well, he's a darling to the liberal groupthink gropers of compost and bicycles and, well, dammit, he's their badge of honor in the national culture wars around gay rights, who cares if he acts like a three-year-old in a monster truck??? The pedophile ex-Governor's portrait sits for years at the statehouse, post-disclosure of problem, and only gets taken down when the family of the victim exerts pressure. I've heard a rumor that a large PPS building is named after someone who, in later life, passed away while awaiting trial for pedophilia. Building name persists. On and on.

Anybody incapable of seeing the inherent problems with old, rich, influential men using the economic position of women old enough to be their granddaughters as a lever for extracting sexual favors is living in a non-reality-based planet, probably set off behind the manicured lawns of a gated community. Wake up. There's about as much chance of that relationship being a well-considered and coercion-free "arrangement" between two adults of equal standing as there is of me taking a solid gold crap tomorrow morning after breakfast.

As for the people posting LOL WHEN CAN I GET HER NUMBER, man, do you gentlemen have ANY female relatives? A wife? Maybe a daughter or a niece in her 20s? Go look in the mirror and tell that "joke" again. I dare you.

In partial reply to Gaye Harris, concerning Wu: The Oregonian tried to do its duty when it dug into his reported college attack on a woman. He got reelected anyway.
I voted for him simply because his opponent impressed me as an even lighter weight, and because I supported Obama, who was much in need of reliable Dem votes in an unreasonable Congress. I was surprised the Republicans didn't try harder. I could have voted for a sensible, credible moderate.

Goli Ameri was a credible moderate, and she ran a well funded campaign without making any big mistakes. She could have been running against Kermit the Frog, and he still would have won if he was the Democratic Candidate.

Following the 2000 redistricting (translation: more Democratic registrations were added from MultCo) there was little chance for a Republican to win the 1st District. In fact, Wu's scandal was a confirmation of the "live boy/dead girl" exception to the power of entrenced incumbents to retain their seat.

Fortunately for Wu, he picked a live girl to have his "affair" with...Frankly, had he picked a live boy, he probably would have been returned to Congress by 1st District voters.

Those who voted to return David Wu to Congress over and over again all share the blame for having gone without effective Congressional representation for more than a decade.

Back to the topic at hand: I was surprised to see Bob Caldwell is still on the masthead of the editorial page...Is there an over/under on when his name is removed? I would bet March 31st (a Saturday) is the day they drop him.

Bhattia would do well to look at Caldwell's connections and the evidence-based stories that never saw the light of day in recent years before he starts calling people "trolls". Caldwell and his politically connected ilk have caused lots of pain and raised issues that must be resolved if the O is ever to be considered credible among thinking people in Portland. It is not enough to call names, Peter...

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 113
At this date last year: 155
Total run in 2016: 155
In 2015: 271
In 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269